I'm very pleased to see the Libertarianz release their own alternative Budget well ahead of Michael Cullen's tax-and-spend clunker. Leader Bernard Darnton presents the main points at Libz TV, and here's just some of the highlights to start you salivating:
- Michael Cullen grudgingly gives you back $20 a week after nine years in power. John Key offers $50 – eventually. Libertarianz will make the first $50,000 of income tax-free immediately. This means that the average New Zealand household, with an income of $68,000, would keep an extra $403 per week..."
- Helen Clark and John Key say no even to taking GST off food. Winston Peters says tinker with it. Libertarianz says get rid of GST immediately, knocking $20 off a $250 grocery bill and ten dollars off the price of a tank of petrol.
- "The government will say they can't afford this – but it's not their money – it's YOURS. You have the right to spend your money however you wish. Libertarianz is pro-choice when it comes to your money."
- "Of course you can't cut tax without cutting government spending – and we're happy to oblige. Education, health, and superannuation are far too important to be left in the hand of politicians.
"We will allow people to spend as much or as little of their money on these as they wish..."
See more details at Scoop, Bernard Darnton's presentation at Libz TV, and the whole spreadsheet on which the Budget is based here at the Libertarianz site. As Darnton concludes:
"With the Libertarianz budget, the churning of money through the government's sticky fingers will be almost eliminated by the tax-free threshold. A flat tax on income over that $50,000 threshold of 25%, reducing 5% per year for 5 years, will fund a smooth transition. After 5 years, no more revenue will collected from the citizenry by coercion or force. Taxes will be voluntary."
"It's enough to make you vote Libertarianz!"
UPDATE: Lindsay Perigo says "Bravo!"
"It's especially gratifying to see the end of the loathsome GST, otherwise known as the ACT Party Tax," says Perigo.
"By coercive government fiat, GST adds twelve-and-a-half per cent to the price of everything. GST was the means by which Roger Douglas continued to expand the Nanny State (after its introduction, tax revenues rose by 6 points as a percentage of GDP) and grind down the smelly proletariat while lowering taxes for his crony-phony capitalist mates (libertarians, of course, favour genuine capitalism, the kind that is not in bed with politicians).
"The measures advocated here by Mr. Darnton put meaningful tax cuts on the table for the first time. They would return hundreds of dollars a week to the pockets of their rightful owners, their earners.
"With the demented Global Warming chooks coming home to roost in the form of skyrocketing food and energy prices, the Libz prescription couldn't be more timely.
"Just what the doctor ordered. Even Dr. Cullen should order it," Perigo concludes.
30 comments:
Looks great to me.
The outcome after 5 years would be that Tax Freedom Day (the day when you start working for yourself rather than the government) would fall on January 1 every year.
Imagine the inflows of capital, the innovation, and the economic growth that would result. It makes you wonder why people continue to vote against such this.
Julian
The first $50,000 tax-free, I like that idea! It's so frustrating that the people who use/abuse the bulk of the Government/State services are the ones that actually contribute little/nothing to the tax take because of so called "family" welfare handouts.
Yes, looks great to me, too. Watch in awe as the Libz stay around 0% in the polls, then pat yourselves on the back for not betraying any principles.
Yes, these taxation proposals are excellent.
Julian is correct in expressing surprise at why people vote against it.
The answer is the ignorance of New Zealanders and politicians bribing them; and Paul Goldsmith has written a new book about just that...the 'political' history of taxation since 1840.
Iseered: you are quite right - the Libertarianz party does not compromise its principles and sell out for the sake of votes, as the mainstream parties are inclined to do. Spread the word if you like.
I know a few people who would not be paying any tax at all under this proposal. How tragic.
Richard McGrath, if you guys aren't prepared to do what it takes "for the sake of votes", why are you even a political party? Sheesh, "taxes will be voluntary." Yeah, good luck using a line like that on your typical voter.
When the concept of *principle* eludes so may- the country is indeed in trouble...
iseered: We're a political party to at least give one alternative when it comes to who to vote for in the election -after all, Western democracy is (supposedly) about representation, right?
And what's the use of votes if you have to give up your principles to gain them? Doesn't it defeat the purpose of being a political party, of having voted at all?
callum, you do whatever it takes to get into power first, THEN you can start to bring the system down from within. Self-congratulatory talk of sticking to "principles" is a lot of useless wank if you're never in power to exercise them. The last thing you want is to isolate yourselves in your objectivist echo chamber yelling "Too right!" and "You said it!" at each other, then wonder why no one outside is listening. You need to understand what you're dealing with - a mostly docile voting population force-fed statist sludge since the age of 5 if not before. "Taxes will be voluntary." Good luck with that.
Taxes will be voluntary
I think that it is a serious mistake for the Libz to propose such policy. Voluntary means no one is paying any tax, even for Defense, Justice & Police (DJP). I believe that it would be better for the Libz to word it something like : 10% tax or something like that from everyone in order to pay & run DJP.
BTW, all other policies spelled out by Darnton looks good.
I'm glad it's you who brought up 'wank,' IAmRed, since inviting derision based only on the line "taxes will be voluntary" frankly invites only derision.
You think it's wrong to point out that the essential services of government can be financed for the same amount people pay for their insurance (and for the same reasons)?
You think it's wrong to point out that the sum required can be voluntary?
You think it's right to take from people by force what they wouldn't give voluntarily?
Then you sir are the wanker you're talking about.
The biggest problem is that nobody will even know about this. I've asked everyone I know: 1 person knew the Libertarianz existed. And that only because I'd remarked on the TV ads last election. And I guarantee you that if I ask again a couple of weeks later, I'll get the same response (even though everyone "knows" now, having been asked).
Of course don't forget under MMP there is compromise. If Libz kept the Nats in power then you'd have an interesting dynamic- the Nats would have to cut spending and taxes, although there would be some to and fro, the Libz would have as a basic point - less government on principle.
Of course you could vote National and get a less toxic version of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, pat yourself on the back and say wow what a change, I've stopped things getting worse so fast.
Perhaps the awnser is not to compromise the Libertarianz principals, but better advertising.
As anon pointed out, very few people are aware of the Libertarianz, and those that do are mainly socialists looking for enemies.
The biggest problem is that nobody will even know about this.
Because 'point and click' activism is pure bullshit.
The ability to edit a voters list, stuff envelopes, staple together signs, heck, even to set up folding chairs and take them down, are much more politically potent than bloviating on a blog.
Political blogs are only useful to the extent that they produce results. Commenters acting like addled groupies are a pointless waste of time, but bloggers have yet to figure that out.
iseered: When was the last time ANY political party truly acted on principle when it was in power? Surely, certain parties may work towards a goal, for instance socialism with Labour governments throughout history, but the fact that the party in question needs to appeal to at least the majority of voters to stay in power, usually means that principle will be chucked out at the first opportunity. It's not enough for a party to get into power, it needs to stay in power -by appealing to the lowest common denominator.
And why is power necessary to exercise principle? Bernard Darnton's court case against Helen Clark was an exercise of principles, so to speak.
I am appalled that chap Iseered is suggesting the Libertarianz, and presumably anyone else, "do whatever it takes to get into power"...that is just shocking.
We should never, ever compromise our principles or hoodwink the electors.
Some anonymous person applauded the Libz Budget but said, "The biggest problem is that nobody will even know about this."
Then may I invite you to join the Libertarianz and help make its policies more widely known?
That's how such things are achieved, after all.
Hanso said, "Perhaps the answer is not to compromise the Libertarianz principles, but better advertising."
Then may I invite you to help support Libertarianz advertising with a donation?
You can join up and donate to Libertarianz online at the Libertarianz website -- and if you've seen the policies and you want to see them or something near them in place, then why not join up and donate and get involved to help make that happen.
It's the only thing that will, you know.
Callum, you said, "And why is power necessary to exercise principle? Bernard Darnton's court case against Helen Clark was an exercise of principles, so to speak."
And in this case also of principals. :-)
I think it is a great budget from a great party leader leading a great young team. The Libertarianz will be getting my vote come the election, even though they probably won't get into parliament, because their policies and beliefs are my own.
AS the saying goes, if not you, who? If not now, when?
Or in the words of Rage Against the Machine "It has to start someplace, it has to start sometime, what better place than here, what better time than now"
:-)
Iseered: sometimes results aren't necessarily measured by number of votes. The Libz action in the High Courtresulted in Helen Clark changing the law retrospectively in order to avoid prosecution over the theft of taxpayer money to fund her pledge card - thus revealing her true colours as a dictator who will stop at nothing to remain in power.
Because 'point and click' activism is pure bullshit.
The ability to edit a voters list, stuff envelopes, staple together signs, heck, even to set up folding chairs and take them down, are much more politically potent than bloviating on a blog.
Absolutely. Climb on the back of the Ron Paul Revolution...at least get some real publicity...
Some anonymous person applauded the Libz Budget but said, "The biggest problem is that nobody will even know about this."
Then may I invite you to join the Libertarianz and help make its policies more widely known?
That anonymous person was me. I always vote Libz, and talk you up to people, but I'm not much of a joiner, especially of political groups...and your Randianism and disparagement of real libertarianism (i.e., anarcho-capitalism) puts me off a bit. (As I say, I talk the Libz up to people whenever the subject comes up, but I always feel that I have to add "beware, they're a bunch of Randroids")
The Ron Paul campaign is a great example of how much support some libertarian ideas can garner.Not that I like Ron Paul.
But as I said - it takes foot soldier activists to do it. Those who are willing to turn off their computers and/or drag their asses out of the pub.
If libertarians believe their budget is good, why not print off brochures outlining it and send them to a few thousand targetted households? How difficult and expensive is that? Not very.
You're a legend Anonymous, our cause needs more like you.
Peter, could you put up the Libz bank account details? The comenter above me has generously offered to fund a mailout of the Libz budget.
Don't worry - I know Libz needs more like me. I gave them $2000 last election. How much did you contribute?
Or do you just blow smoke on blogs?
Don't bother to answer.
Anonymous - thank you for your generous donation at the last election. You may be pleased to know the Libz will be out there in force this time. Exciting times lie ahead!
I agree that commenting on blogs is catering to a limited audience, most of whom have their minds made up already. A lot of campaign meetings are like that too. However we have plans for mass advertising, and LibzTV is up and running!
Thank you Richard McGrath.
Your acknowledgement has been the first we have *ever* received - except from Dr Robert White.
My husband and I have been excluded from Libz functions, while people like Lineberry and the insane Sandi/Rebel Radius have been welcomed.
My husband - as a leader in the worldwide business community - has been excluded from the Libz candidate list on more than 2 occasions, despite monetary support.
Anonymous, I also want to thank you for your donation/s.
I do, however, think it unfair to bring me (to my astonishment) into this conversation in a pejorative way without giving your name.
My email is nightcity@xtra.co.nz ...if you have something to say, feel free to say it, but be upfront and honest about it.
Post a Comment